I contacted the girl in the video. This is exactly, word-for-word what went back and forth between us:
ME: [quote]Hey I watched your latest video, about straight Johnny.
I've never really seen any of your other videos, but this one that I saw made me think about things.
I truly think that if a hot lesbian (such as you) met me, that I she would fall in love with me, and realize that not all guys are assholes, and that I am a great human being, and she shouldn't care if I had a penis or a vagina.
I feel like gay people are discriminating against us straight people.
Do you want to talk about this?[/quote]
HER: [quote]Listen - [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E69OpaIHZBg[/media][/quote]
ME: [quote]All that the song says is that you're being stubborn.
The only real difference between men and women is superficiality. I don't mean to call you shallow, but that's what you seem to be. Not to mention that you seem like you just want to belong to some team -- a "girl team", or a "lesbian team" if you will.[/quote]
You still haven't answered anything yet though.[/quote]
ME: [quote]Why are you afraid to have a real conversation?
I have nothing against gay people, don't think of me the wrong way.[/quote]
HER: [quote]The way you responded,
is exactly why I am lesbian.[/quote]
ME: [quote]If you want to have a real conversation, and to convince me (and ultimately convince yourself) that you are right, then come and chat with me. [/quote]
ME: [quote]Also you are implying that you were not born a lesbian.
I understand that SOME gay people are born gay, but there are other gay people that become gay based on their surroundings. They begin to develop stereotypes of people, and they just shut off whatever bothers them and move on to the next ting.
You could seriously meet someone that you will find to be totally different than what you see men to be.
I'm not some conservative Christian trying to save the world from the gays.
If I had to label myself, I'd say I'm a liberal atheist. I just don't want to sound intimidating.[/quote]
HER: [quote]Would you be interested in men?
Just like you KNOW that you don't like men, I KNOW I don't like men.
It's not because I haven't met the right guy.
And it's not because I'm stubborn.
It was the way that I was born. Just like YOU were born straight.
It frustrates me when men walk into my life and think just because I have long hair and dress like a girl, that I can't REALLY be a lesbian.
If I was a dike, you wouldn't be saying all of this to me.
How would you feel if I sat here and tried to convince you that YOU liked men?
So no thank you.
It's not because I haven't met the right guy.
I am a lesbian. I like women. Girls. Females.
And not a man in the world could change that.
-Jenna[/quote]
ME: [quote]"The way you responded,
is exactly why I am lesbian" -Jenna
I thought you said you were born a lesbian.[/quote]
ME: [quote]I'm glad that you have no reply to what I had to say.
But seriously, where is your reply?[/quote]
ME: [quote]Cool. You have nothing to say.[/quote]
She has not replied to me to this day.
[QUOTE=collegegrad;25650906]I contacted the girl in the video. This is exactly, word-for-word what went back and forth between us:
A bunch of bullshit
[/QUOTE]
So you are just being a dick?
Would you date a guy if he came up to you and said the same thing? Idiot.
By the way, if people are going to keep arguing this shit, please attend a basic college ethics course.
Just as you can't bring religion into an argument, you can't use scientific facts as claim for what is and isn't right. Right; not true, but right. It's called turning an [B]is[/B] into an [B]ought[/B] statement. If we're allowed to do this, it's pretty much a fucking free-for-all as long as there's some tiny scrap of evidence somewhere. It's what caused a huge shit-storm when genes were being blamed for adultery in some guys. Learn some basic ethic systems like Rights Ethics, Duty Ethics and Utilitarian Ethics; and then apply homosexuality to them and make your judgment. I know this argument is potentially very deep, but I want to boil it down to a different level so we can get off this nature and opinion bullshit. Mind you, I'm making these as simple as possible and might be way off because it's been a damn long time since my last ethics class.
[B]Rights Ethics[/B] - I am human, therefore I have rights.
Homosexuality? It's a choice. My right. End of story. As long as there's consent, I'm not infringing upon anyone's implicit or unalienable rights.
[B]Duty Ethics[/B] - Uphold duties first and foremost. Apply them to situations at hand.
[I]Kant's System[/I] - No two duties should be infringed upon or cross. All must be upheld.
This is where homosexuality falters. If it is a human duty to reproduce, homosexuality falls short. Yes, there are ways of letting two males, or two females, have a baby; but that's out of the bounds. If we apply it to the universalize-ability test: if everyone was homosexual, human race dies out, the end.
[I]Subjectivity (I forget the exact term we used for this)[/I] - The higher duty goes first.
There can be a lot of heated argument here. Is it a higher duty to reproduce, or to enjoy life with a partner? These aren't the ways of putting it, but you get the picture. This is a subject of debate that I'll skip for now.
[B]Utilitarian Ethics[/B] - Greatest good for the greatest number.
The question here is the number. Is it the human race, or is it the one or two individuals? If it's the race, there's an issue; if it's the individuals, they're good to go. This is, of course, if I remember it correctly.
I'm not putting this up here to argue, or force a view-point. I'm trying to get it through to people that the topic of homosexuality has been and still is being debated on a much deeper level then the petty arguments here. So unless someone wants to pull some A-Grade Graduate ethics up in here; the debate at hand is really moot. Spewing a bunch of dribble about nature and science doesn't validate your argument. Just because it's my instinct to violently assault someone who has wronged me, doesn't make it right. No less than my natural desire to want to hump the nearest beautiful woman. Not one tiny little drop of this means that you have to like homosexuality. It doesn't mean you have to be friends with gays and lesbians, or be one yourself. Ethics, at heart, helps us determine what is right and wrong; and not what we have to like or not like. /1AM Rant.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;25621341]That isn't pedophilia. A 16 year old is perfectly capable to consent as far as sexual development goes. Pedophilia is attraction to children who are not sexually developed, and who cannot consent due to that fact.
Which a child can't which is why pedophilia is inherently wrong.[/QUOTE]
God dammit people, pedophilia =/= sex with children.
I always get a little disapointed when I learn someone is a lesbian because it means that no matter what I do, I will never get to have sex with them. Despite that though, they are some of the nicest (and hottest) girls I know.
[QUOTE=Doom14;25652024]By the way, if people are going to keep arguing this shit, please attend a basic college ethics course.
Just as you can't bring religion into an argument, you can't use scientific facts as claim for what is and isn't right. Right; not true, but right. It's called turning an is into an ought statement. If we're allowed to do this, it's pretty much a fucking free-for-all as long as there's some tiny scrap of evidence somewhere. It's what caused a huge shit-storm when genes were being blamed for adultery in some guys. Learn some basic ethic systems like Rights Ethics, Duty Ethics and Utilitarian Ethics; and then apply homosexuality to them and make your judgment. I know this argument is potentially very deep, but I want to boil it down to a different level so we can get off this nature and opinion bullshit. Mind you, I'm making these as simple as possible and might be way off because it's been a damn long time since my last ethics class.
Rights Ethics - I am human, therefore I have rights.
Homosexuality? It's a choice. My right. End of story. As long as there's consent, I'm not infringing upon anyone's implicit or unalienable rights.
Duty Ethics - Uphold duties first and foremost. Apply them to situations at hand.
Kant's System - No two duties should be infringed upon or cross. All must be upheld.
This is where homosexuality falters. If it is a human duty to reproduce, homosexuality falls short. Yes, there are ways of letting two males, or two females, have a baby; but that's out of the bounds. If we apply it to the universalize-ability test: if everyone was homosexual, human race dies out, the end.
Subjectivity (I forget the exact term we used for this) - The higher duty goes first.
There can be a lot of heated argument here. Is it a higher duty to reproduce, or to enjoy life with a partner? These aren't the ways of putting it, but you get the picture. This is a subject of debate that I'll skip for now.
Utilitarian Ethics - Greatest good for the greatest number.
The question here is the number. Is it the human race, or is it the one or two individuals? If it's the race, there's an issue; if it's the individuals, they're good to go. This is, of course, if I remember it correctly.
I'm not putting this up here to argue, or force a view-point. I'm trying to get it through to people that the topic of homosexuality has been and still is being debated on a much deeper level then the petty arguments here. So unless someone wants to pull some A-Grade Graduate ethics up in here; the debate at hand is really moot. Spewing a bunch of dribble about nature and science doesn't validate your argument. Just because it's my instinct to violently assault someone who has wronged me, doesn't make it right. No less than my natural desire to want to hump the nearest beautiful woman. Not one tiny little drop of this means that you have to like homosexuality. It doesn't mean you have to be friends with gays and lesbians, or be one yourself. Ethics, at heart, helps us determine what is right and wrong; and not what we have to like or not like. /1AM Rant. [/QUOTE]
Your application of Duty Ethics is flawed, simply because humans have no duty to reproduce, and I don't think that anyone holds that argument. Our population is larger than is optimal. And, eventually, if our population did decrease, there will still be straight people around to reproduce (in the context of a relationship) to sustain the human race, not to mention that being homosexual doesn't make you incapable of reproduction.
[QUOTE=fenwick;25654544]Your application of Duty Ethics is flawed, simply because humans have no duty to reproduce, and I don't think that anyone holds that argument. Our population is larger than is optimal. And, eventually, if our population did decrease, there will still be straight people around to reproduce (in the context of a relationship) to sustain the human race, not to mention that being homosexual doesn't make you incapable of reproduction.[/QUOTE]
It was just showing it compared to that model and was using the standard things that come up. I agree that there should be far less weighting in it for duties and an enjoyable life is far more valuable than having children. It's a basic thing on ethics and is a start in the right direction for where the debate should be going.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
